Sustainability 13 13363 v2

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/356803837
Inspection and Assessment of Masonry Arch Bridges: Ivanjica Case Study
Article in Sustainability · December 2021

DOI: 10.3390/su132313363
CITATIONS READS
7 417
5 authors, including:
Neda Sokolovic Milica Petrović

University of Belgrade Zoling DOO
12 PUBLICATIONS 72 CITATIONS 16 PUBLICATIONS 23 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Ana Kontic Suzana Koprivica

University of Belgrade Univerzitet UNION Nikola Tesla
7 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS 9 PUBLICATIONS 28 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Neda Sokolovic on 07 December 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

sustainability
Article
Inspection and Assessment of Masonry Arch Bridges: Ivanjica
Case Study
Neda M. Sokolović 1, *, Milica Petrović 1 , Ana Kontić 1 , Suzana Koprivica 2 and Nenad Šekularac 1, *
1 Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia; milica.petrovic@arh.bg.ac.rs (M.P.);

an.ko@arh.bg.ac.rs (A.K.)
2 Faculty of Construction Management, University-Union Nikola Tesla, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia;
skoprivica@unionnikolatesla.edu.rs
* Correspondence: neda.dzombic@arh.bg.ac.rs (N.M.S.); nenad.sekularac@arh.bg.ac.rs (N.Š.)
Abstract: The importance of masonry arch bridges as a traffic network element calls for a thorough
analysis focused on both structural stability and loading capacity of these historical structures, consid-
ering the usage of these bridges in contemporary traffic conditions. This paper focuses on the analysis
of longitudinal cracks in a single span masonry arch bridge to evaluate its influence on structural
behaviour of the system. As longitudinal cracks do not necessarily present an inevitable collapse
mechanism, analysis of the causes is crucial for evaluating the serviceability and functionality of the
bridge investigated. The methodology is based on the following: literature review, observation of the
stone bridge in Ivanjica, geological testing of the site, geophysical testing of the bridge, laboratory

testing of mechanical characteristics of stone used for the bridge construction and biological analysis
of the samples of implemented materials on the bridge. Finite element analysis of the bridge was
Citation: Sokolović, N.M.; Petrović,
conducted to define the causes of the longitudinal cracks. The 3D simulation model was based on
M.; Kontić, A.; Koprivica, S.;
Šekularac, N. Inspection and
the data collected through observation and experimental analysis. This paper provides extensive
Assessment of Masonry Arch Bridges: research on a single span masonry bridge, examining how different deterioration mechanisms, in
Ivanjica Case Study. Sustainability conjunction, can lead to the appearance of cracks in masonry arch bridges and provide remedial
2021, 13, 13363. https://doi.org/ measures accordingly.
10.3390/su132313363
Keywords: stone bridge; arch barrel deformations; longitudinal cracks; experimental testing; FEM;
Academic Editors: Juan structural capacity; traffic load; arch barrel defects
Francisco Reinoso-Gordo,
Antonio Gámiz-Gordo and
Antonio José Gómez-Blanco Pontes
1. Introduction
Received: 11 October 2021
Accepted: 29 November 2021
Older stone bridges are part of the rich historical heritage. Only a few of them remain
Published: 2 December 2021
to date in Balkan countries. after many of them suffered damage in their past. Nowadays,
they are witness to cultural and social features of the period they were built in. Most
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
of these bridges were designed centuries ago, being built according to empirical rules
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
not matching the loads of contemporary traffic. The excellent durability and carrying
published maps and institutional affil- capacity of masonry arch bridges is shown through their continuous use, as they are still
iations. in service with the massive use of motor vehicles that replaced carts [1]. The Industrial
Revolution led to the development of new materials, mainly steel, and thus reinforced
concrete, consequently, led to gradually declining masonry structures. The appearance
of cracks, which is common in masonry structures, as well as the aging of materials and
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
structural deformations, result in a decrease in stiffness requiring an investigation into
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
the structural behaviour to ensure long-term stability [2]. Consequently, these structures
This article is an open access article
need to be inspected to minimise damage risk since there is a possibility of experiencing
distributed under the terms and significant economic and social losses [3]. The primary maintenance method of these
conditions of the Creative Commons bridges is focused on the proper direction of water runoff as well as on control of growing
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// vegetation that appears on bridge structures [4]. Among stone bridges in Serbia, there
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ are only a few that have not been altered before since most of them needed repairs and
4.0/). restoration in the length of time. Any further intervention on these structures requires a
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13363. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313363 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 13363 2 of 23
careful and cautious approach to maintain structural stability and another usage without
compromising its architectural and monumental value. Hypotheses can be made based
on the previously observed and read as follows: To establish the proper treatment of a
masonry arch bridge to prevent any further deformation and opening of the existing cracks,
it is necessary to study their structural behaviour as well as to determine the causes of the
damage. These can only be conducted based on the analysis of features of both the bridge
itself and building materials used.
2. Research Objectives
The case study of the old stone bridge in Ivanjica, Serbia, will be considered in this
paper. According to the defined hypothesis in this paper, the following research objectives
are set as follows:
• Active investigation of the site to determine the condition of the bridge and to ensure
that adequate measures can be taken for the protection and safeguarding of this
historic structure as well as the unique spirit and landmark quality of the entire Spatial
Cultural-Historical Units of Great Importance in the Republic of Serbia.
• Conducting all necessary research to provide the protection measurements, the main-
tenance of stability and preservation of the integrity:
- Geological testing for determination of soil quality and foundation stability;
- Geophysical testing using geoelectrical tomography to determine the physical
characteristics of the internal bridge structure;
- Laboratory physical–mechanical testing of stone structure samples to determine
physical and mechanical characteristics;
- Biological analysis of damaged stones to determine degradation level;
- Structural analysis through the numerical model for determining the causes of
longitudinal cracks on the arch barrel.
• Perceiving the results of conducted research to determine the causes of deformations
and cracks of the stone arch bridge.
• Systemise the obtained facts about the causes of deformations of the bridge and analyse
its structural behaviour, assessing the stability of the structure, and suggest necessary
measures to preserve this historic structure and prevent further deterioration.
• Enhancing knowledge about the possibility of protecting stone bridges to prevent
further degradation, particularly the development of new cracks.
• Enhancing consciousness concerning the values and methods of historical monuments
preservation.
Literature Review
Even though masonry arch bridges usually follow simple forms [5], the complexity of
their understanding and investigation lies in the variety of ground conditions, geometries
of the structure, sensitivity of materials used, weathering conditions and maintenance
measures [6]. In masonry arch bridges, the damages can be followed by various problems
that must be thoroughly investigated. For the structure to be restored and its further
deformations prevented, the causes of the damages must be analysed. Masonry arches, as
a result of inhomogeneous composition, show complex patterns of failure. Before the loss
happens, significant damage with the formation of numerous hinges can occur, which raises
the question, what range of damage is acceptable for serviceability of the structure [7].
Masonry arch barrels transmit live loads in two perpendicular directions: longitudinal
and transverse. Longitudinal (yz plane) is the one corresponding to bridge span and
transverse directions correspond to the bridge depth (xz plane) (Figure 1). The main criteria
for transferring the load in the longitudinal direction is the behaviour of the arch barrel.
The response in the transverse direction is the pressure on the inner side of the spandrel
and wing walls [8]. This lateral pressure can cause the overturning of the walls and often
causes detachment of wall and longitudinal cracks between the spandrel and the arch
ring [9]. Garrity recognised materials deterioration, spandrel wall detachment, arch barrel
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 24
spandrel and wing walls [8]. This lateral pressure can cause the overturning of the walls
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13363 and often causes detachment of wall and longitudinal cracks between the spandrel 3 ofand
23
the arch ring [9]. Garrity recognised materials deterioration, spandrel wall detachment,
arch barrel defects and foundation disruption as the primary defects in masonry arches
[6]. Thisand
defects author’s summary
foundation is in accordance
disruption with other
as the primary authors
defects who investigated
in masonry arches [6]. potential
This
sources of failure and collapse of masonry arches [10,11–14].
author’s summary is in accordance with other authors who investigated potential sources The focus of this paper is
longitudinal
of failure andcracks observed
collapse of masonryin thearches
case study of the
[10–14]. TheIvanjica
focus ofbridge. Contrasting
this paper to trans-
is longitudinal
verse
crackscracks
observed thatinappear
the case onstudy
the barrel’s intradosbridge.
of the Ivanjica and lead to development
Contrasting of additional
to transverse cracks
hinges,
that appear thus onaltering the stability
the barrel’s intrados of the
andstructure, longitudinalofcracks
lead to development can appear
additional hinges, without
thus
endangering structural stability [15]. Barrels built as a single
altering the stability of the structure, longitudinal cracks can appear without endangering span masonry arch bridge
are highly stability
structural statically[15].
indeterminate,
Barrels built fairly
as a extensive
single span cracks
masonry do not usually
arch bridge cause the col-
are highly
lapse,
staticallyas the alternative load
indeterminate, fairlypaths are developed,
extensive cracks doproviding
not usually that the the
cause forces applied
collapse, astothethe
alternative
structure canload
stillpaths are developed,
be transferred to theproviding
supports that the Few
[16,17]. forces applied to lead
phenomena the structure
to the de-
can still be of
velopment transferred
longitudinal to the supports
cracks. The [16,17]. Few phenomena
first phenomenon lead to the
is out-of-plane development
movement of the
of longitudinal cracks. The first phenomenon is out-of-plane
spandrel wall, embodied in the form of leaning, bulging and development of longitudinal movement of the spandrel
wall, embodied
cracks on the contact in thezone
formofofthe leaning,
spandrelbulging
wall and
and development
an inner area of of longitudinal
the arch. On cracks
the one
on thebending
hand, contact zoneof theofarch
the barrel
spandrel walllive
under andload
an inner area of
produces the stresses
shear arch. Oninthe theone hand,
inner part
bending
of the bridge, of thewhilst
arch barrel underspandrel
the stiffer live loadwallproduces
respondssheardifferently,
stresses in the inner
which part of
causes thetheap-
bridge, whilst the stiffer spandrel wall responds differently, which
pearance of longitudinal cracks on their contact zone [9,15,18–20]. Traffic load will pro- causes the appearance
of longitudinal
duce flexing of cracksthe arch onring
theirduecontact zonestresses
to shear [9,15,18–20].
in theTraffic
ring at load will produce
a relatively flexing
flexible part
of the arch ring due to shear stresses in the ring at a relatively
with only fill above [21]. When this happens, both the inner and outer zone of the bridge flexible part with only fill
above [21]. When this happens, both the inner and outer zone of the bridge continue
continue working separately. The structure’s collapse mechanism depends on the arch
working separately. The structure’s collapse mechanism depends on the arch barrel’s
barrel’s response in the transversal direction, i.e., on the appearance of a sufficient number
response in the transversal direction, i.e., on the appearance of a sufficient number of
of hinges that could convert structure to the mechanism. Moreover, this kind of crack can
hinges that could convert structure to the mechanism. Moreover, this kind of crack can
appear in the middle parts of the arch barrel, usually in its second third, resulting from
appear in the middle parts of the arch barrel, usually in its second third, resulting from
traffic overload and deflections in that area [22]. On the other hand, the physical changes
traffic overload and deflections in that area [22]. On the other hand, the physical changes in
in
thethefill fill material
material can can generate
generate out-of-plane
out-of-plane behaviour
behaviour of theofspandrel
the spandrel wall. When
wall. When exposed ex-
posed to moist conditions and low temperatures, pores of the
to moist conditions and low temperatures, pores of the fill material are suitable for ice fill material are suitable for
ice formation, followed by material expansion and thus induction
formation, followed by material expansion and thus induction of horizontal pressure on of horizontal pressure
on
thethe spandrel
spandrel wallwall [15,17,22–25].
[15,17,22–25]. Additionally,
Additionally, thethe reason
reason forfor longitudinal
longitudinal cracks
cracks cancan bebe
the wash out of bridge foundation [23], usually provoked by
the wash out of bridge foundation [23], usually provoked by the suffusion of bearing soil the suffusion of bearing soil
beneath the foundations, and such cracks appear in the lower
beneath the foundations, and such cracks appear in the lower zones of the bridge closer zones of the bridge closer
to
to them.
them.
Figure 1. Three-dimensional
Figure 1. scheme of
Three-dimensional scheme of possible
possibleposition
positionofoftransverse
transverseand
andlongitudinal
longitudinalcracks
cracksinin
masonry arch bridges due to most common causes of cracks.
masonry arch bridges due to most common causes of cracks.
The second group of deterioration mechanisms that do not directly influence the
stability of the structure are physical processes that lead to deterioration of material and,
consequently, influence the structural behaviour of the structure. One of the main accompa-
nying processes that is recognised in literature is leakage of eater into the arch barrel, which
promotes washing out of the finer particles, and the acid nature of water can be a catalyst
for dissolution of carbonate products, followed by the possible freezing cycles [15,25].
Softening of materials, associated with the appearance of cracks, can lead to the change in
structural behaviour and redistribution of stresses.
Nonetheless, to conduct a thorough structural analysis and determine the cause of
damages on the arch stone bridge in the case study, it is necessary to analyse the geometry
of the bridge, which is crucial for the stability of masonry bridges [26,27], but also to explore
the materials built into the bridge [28]. The analysis of the condition of building material
is especially important for the overall stability of the bridge. However, this research
focuses on investigating the current condition of the Ivanjica bridge, investigating possible
causes for the state found, and predicting possible future behaviour whilst proposing
remedial measures.
3. Case Study Methodology

Since this research aims to analyse the longitudinal cracks found on the arch barrel of
the bridge in Ivanjica, in the following part of the paper, possible causes for this problem
will be investigated. For the research shown in this paper, the following methodology
is applied:
• Data analysis using literature review, analysis of previous studies and the systematisa-
tion of knowledge about the problem of cracks on arch stone bridges.
• Observation on the site focused on the built-in materials state, monitoring of support-
ing elements and the soil beneath the foundation, detection of cracks on the bridge’s
arch barrel and detection of other damages related to the degradation of the stone
structure on the bridge’s parapet.
• Geological research of the characteristics of the soil beneath the foundation of the
stone bridge in Ivanjica and research of the geological and engineering properties of
the geological substrate and its influence on the structural stability of the construction.
• Geophysical testing using a non-destructive method of electrical-scanning tomography
and the analysis of the results.
• Physical–mechanical testing of stone characteristics used for the bridge structure based
on stone samples gained using the mechanical sample destructive-extraction method
for analysis. Laboratory testing also included the testing of mineral petrographic
properties of stone, axial stress strength, volumetric of stone with and without the
pores, stone porosity and its hygroscopic characteristics.
• Biological (mycological) analysis of the substrate samples from the stone bridge using
macroscopic and microscopic examination.
• Three-dimensional model simulation based on finite element method and bridge
analysis under loads (Radimpex Software: Tower7).
• Discussion regarding previous analysis and developing conclusions about causes of
bridge damages and the appearance of cracks.
• Proposition for the restoration of the arch stone bridge in Ivanjica based on the data
given through previous analysis.
3.1. Ivanjica Stone Arch Bridge Background

The subject of this case study is the single-arch stone bridge in Ivanjica (Figure 2),
located in the southwestern part of Serbia. The bridge is situated in the city centre and it
connects the coasts of the Moravica river. It was built between 1904 and 1906 and designed
by Milenko Trudic. Construction of the bridge was funded by the Kingdom of Serbia
and performed by the local construction company of Blagoje Lukovic, as testified by the
inscriptions on the bridge. To date, it has not gone through any significant repairs or
performed by
performed by the
the local
localconstruction
constructioncompany companyofofBlagoje
BlagojeLukovic,
Lukovic,asastestified
testifiedbyby the
the in-in-
scriptions on the bridge. To date, it has not gone through any significant
scriptions on the bridge. To date, it has not gone through any significant repairs or resto- repairs or resto-
ration.
ration. Because
restoration.
Because ofthe
Because
of theofvisible damages,
the visible
visible damages, sincesince
damages,
since 2014,2014,
2014, theheavy
the heavy vehicles
the heavy ononthe
vehicles
vehicles the
on bridge have
the bridge
bridge have
been
been banned.
have banned.
been Nowadays,
banned. ititisisitused
Nowadays,
Nowadays, used bylight
is used
by light
by motor
light motor
motor vehicles
vehicles
vehicles and pedestriansonly.
andpedestrians
and pedestrians only.This
only. This
This
bridge is listed as
as the
the Spatial
Spatial Cultural-Historical
Cultural-Historical Unit
Unit of
of Great
Great Importance
Importance
bridge is listed as the Spatial Cultural-Historical Unit of Great Importance in Serbia and inin Serbia
Serbia and
and
protected by
by the
the state.
state.
protected by the state.
Figure 2. Masonry
Figure2. Masonrystone
stonearch
stone archbridge
arch bridge in
bridge inIvanjica
in Ivanjicain
Ivanjica inits
in itsnatural
its naturalsurroundings
natural surroundings(a)
surroundings (a)and
(a) andthe
and thetraffic
the trafficroad
traffic of
road
road the
ofof bridge
the
the (b).
bridge
bridge (b).
(b).
3.2.
3.2. Bridge
Bridge Construction
Construction
Construction
The
The construction
constructionof
construction ofthe
of thebridge
the bridgeand
bridge andits
and itscurrent
its currentcondition
current conditionwas
condition wasdetermined
was determined
determined during
during
during site
site
site
visiting. Bridge survey
visiting. Bridge survey was was conducted
was conducted using
conductedusing dual-axis
usingdual-axis compensation
dual-axiscompensation Total
compensationTotal Station
TotalStation Leica
StationLeica
Leica
TC407
TC407 7”, 7”, an
an instrument
instrumentthat
instrument thatrecords
that recordsaccurate
records accuratemeasurements:
accurate measurements:distance
measurements: distance222mm
distance mm++ +22 2ppm,
mm ppm,
ppm,
angular
angular 7” (displays
7”(displays
(displaysto to 1”).
to1”).
1”). Measurements
Measurements
Measurements obtained
obtained were
were
obtained transferred
transferred
were ininAutoCAD
in AutoCAD
transferred AutoCAD soft-
softwaresoft-
ware
usingusing
ware LeicaLeica
using Leica Instrument
Instrument ToolsTools
Instrument Tools software—Data
software—Data
software—Data Exchange
Exchange Manager.
Manager.
Exchange A 3D
Manager. AA3D3Dmodel
model of the
model ofof
the bridge
bridge (Figure
(Figure 3) 3)
with with
its its
preciseprecise construction
construction was was performed
performed in in
AutoCAD
the bridge (Figure 3) with its precise construction was performed in AutoCAD software AutoCAD software
software using
using
using collected
collected
collected measurements.
measurements.
measurements. Measurement
Measurement accuracy
Measurement accuracy was
wasessential
was essential
accuracy for
fordetermining
for determining
essential the
the exact
determining the
exact position
position of of
bridge bridge
supports.supports.
Detailed Detailed
inspectioninspection
of the of
arch the arch
barrel and
exact position of bridge supports. Detailed inspection of the arch barrel and measuring barrel and
measuring measuring
the cracks
the
wascracks
the conducted
cracks was
was conducted through
throughobservation
through observation
conducted from
fromthe
from the formwork,
observation theformwork,
placed placed
on the
formwork, rightonside
placed onthe right
of
the the
right
side of
river. the river.
Dimensions Dimensions
of stone of
blocksstone
wereblocks
measuredwere measured
on
side of the river. Dimensions of stone blocks were measured on site. site. on site.
Figure 3. Three-dimensional model of masonry stone arch bridge in Ivanjica.

Figure 3. Three-dimensional modelof
Three-dimensional model ofmasonry
masonrystone
stonearch
archbridge
bridgeininIvanjica.
Ivanjica.
Sustainability
Sustainability 2021,
2021, 13,
13, x13363
FOR PEER REVIEW 66 of
of 24
23
The bridge is a single span construction in the form of a segmental arch, with the
The bridge is a single span construction in the form of a segmental arch, with the span
span of s = 27.3 m and rise of r = 6.0 m, arch radius on the intrados is R = 19.3 m, the width
of s = 27.3 m and rise of r = 6.0 m, arch radius on the intrados is R = 19.3 m, the width
of the arch barrel is 7.9 m and it is 13.5 m above river level (Figure 4). The bridge’s total
of the arch barrel is 7.9 m and it is 13.5 m above river level (Figure 4). The bridge’s total
length is 49 m and its usable width is 6.6 m (2 lines × 0.9 m of walking zone + 4.8 m traffic
length is 49 m and its usable width is 6.6 m (2 lines × 0.9 m of walking zone + 4.8 m traffic
zone). During measuring on the site, it was determined that the bridge is asymmetrical,
zone). During measuring on the site, it was determined that the bridge is asymmetrical,
and
anditsitsabutments
abutmentsare areonondifferent
differentheights.
heights.The Theheight
heightdifference
differenceisis0.48
0.48mm(Figure
(Figure4).4).
AsAsa
consequence,
a consequence, thethe
difference
difference in in
wing wall
wing height
wall from
height fromthethe
abutments
abutments to the beltbelt
to the course on
course
the left side of the bridge is 6.9 m and it is 6.4 m on the right, while the height
on the left side of the bridge is 6.9 m and it is 6.4 m on the right, while the height in the in the middle
of the bridge,
middle of the from thefrom
bridge, intrados to the belt
the intrados course,
to the is 2.1 m.isThe
belt course, crown
2.1 m. The of the bridge
crown varies
of the bridge
in
varies in height because of different radiuses of extrados (22.5 m) and intrados (19.3The
height because of different radiuses of extrados (22.5 m) and intrados (19.3 m). m).
difference between
The difference theirtheir
between centres of curvature
centres of curvatureis 2.28 m. This
is 2.28 bridge
m. This fallsfalls
bridge intointo
thethe
group of
group
large span
of large bridges
span bridges 15.0
15.0< s< (m)
s (m)with
witha ashallow
shallowarch
archr/sr/s==0.22
0.22<<0.25
0.25[29].
[29].The
The formwork
formwork
was supposed to be used for construction based on its shape and
was supposed to be used for construction based on its shape and quality, even though quality, even though
there
there is no record (Figure
is no record (Figure 4). 4).
Figure
Figure 4.
4. Geometric
Geometriccharacteristics of of
characteristics thethe
bridge: span,
bridge: depth
span, and and
depth arch arch
rise, with highlighted
rise, with position
highlighted of developed
position longi-
of developed
tudinal cracks.
longitudinal cracks.
Sustainability
Sustainability2021, 13,13,
2021, 13363
x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 7ofof2324
Levelofofthe
Level thebridge
bridgewas
wasformed
formedclose
closetotothe
thehorizontal
horizontalline
linewith
withminimum
minimumincline
inclinefor
for
waterdrainage,
water drainage,which
whichisisnot
notcommon
commonfor forbridges
bridgesininthe
theBalkans
Balkanssince
sincethey
theywere
weremostly
mostly
builtwith
built withhigh
highincline
inclineunder
underthetheTurkish
Turkishbuilders’
builders’influence.
influence.TheThetraffic
trafficand
andpedestrian
pedestrian
zonesare
zones areasphalted.
asphalted.
Naturalcarved
Natural carved sandstone
sandstone was usedused totoconstruct
constructthethebridge,
bridge, with
withthethe
addition of me-
addition of
metallic cramps
tallic cramps to to provide
provide adequate
adequate stone
stone interlocking.
interlocking. All All
the the embedded
embedded stone
stone blocks
blocks were
were box shaped
box shaped and and of different
of different dimensions
dimensions as measured
as measured on-site
on-site [30]:[30]:
• Spandrel
Spandreland andwing
wingwall wallwere
wereformed
formedininaaregular
regularpattern,
pattern,ininthirteen
thirteenhorizontal
horizontallines,
lines,
with
withthe
theheight
height ofofthethe
blocks 44 44
blocks cm,cm,
while thethe
while length is varying
length and and
is varying goesgoes
up toup
140tocm.
140
The
cm.third dimension
The third couldcould
dimension not benot
measured
be measuredby visual inspection.
by visual inspection.
• Spandrel
Spandrelofofthe thearch
archbarrel’s
barrel’scross
crosssection
sectionvaries
variesand
andthe theheight
heightofofthethestone
stoneatatthe
the
keystone is 97 cm, up to 172 cm in the abutments. Stone is 51 cm wide,
keystone is 97 cm, up to 172 cm in the abutments. Stone is 51 cm wide, and its depth and its depth
varies
variesfrom
from5555toto7777cm, cm,which
whichcan canbebeseen
seenfrom
fromthetheinner
innerside
sideofofthe
thearch
archbarrel
barrel
(Figures 5 and 6). So, the dimensions of stone blocks are 97–172
(Figures 5 and 6). So, the dimensions of stone blocks are 97–172 cm × 51 cm cm × 51 cm ××7777cmcm
and
and97–172
97–172cm cm××51 51cmcm××55 55cm.
cm.Joints
Jointsbetween
betweenstone
stoneblocks
blocksareareradially
radiallyoriented
oriented
towards
towardsthe thecentre
centreofofthethearch
archbarrel’s
barrel’sradius.
radius.
• Arch barrel is built in a regular pattern.
Arch barrel is built in a regular pattern. The The dimensions
dimensionsof theofblocks are 84are
the blocks cm84×cm50 cm
× 50
and the third dimension (the height) is 97–172
cm and the third dimension (the height) is 97–172 cm. cm.
Figure 5. Elevation of the spandrel and wing wall with arch ring showing the dimensions and rela-
Figure 5. Elevation of the spandrel and wing wall with arch ring showing the dimensions and
tion between stone blocks from which it was built and their current state.
relation between stone blocks from which it was built and their current state.
Parapet and belt course were also made of natural sandstone with punch finishes.
Belt course stones’ height is approximately 20 cm, and it overhangs above the spandrel
and wing walls, protecting them from changeable climatic conditions. The exposure to
environmental effects affected the stone and led to the decay of some parts. Stone testing
has proven that the parapet has suffered severe deterioration [30], followed by the building
up of sediments, bio-colonisation, stratification, falling or loss of stone material (Figure 5).
Figure 6. Elevation of the arch barrel where deterioration of alternately built-in stone blocks and the
Figure 6. Elevation of the arch barrel where deterioration of alternately built-in stone blocks and the
visible difference between the central-dry and side-wet sides of the arch barrel.
visible difference between the central-dry and side-wet sides of the arch barrel.
Parapet and belt course were also made of natural sandstone with punch finishes.
The deterioration of stone structure, presence of moisture and of longitudinal cracks
were spottedstones’
Belt course height
by visual is approximately
inspection. The presence20 cm,of and it overhangs
moisture on the archabove the spandrel
barrel is more
and wing walls, protecting them from changeable climatic conditions. The
significant on the northern side and near its side edges (Figure 6), as expected. Longitudinal exposure to
environmental
cracks were formed effects affected
in several the stone
places, and led
following to the
either the decay of some parts.
stone structure of the Stone
bridgetesting
or its
has proven that the parapet has suffered severe deterioration [30], followed
joints. The greatest cracks are in the crown zone, while there are none near the foundations. by the build-
ing up of sediments,
Observation of the exactbio-colonisation,
position of thestratification,
cracks (Figurefalling or loss
4) shows thatofthe
stone material
cracks (Figure
are near the
5).
edges of the arch barrel, i.e., shorter cracks are 50–75 cm from the edge and a great crack is
135 cmThe deterioration
from the edge. Theof stone structure,
observation presence
showed that of moisture
these cracksand of longitudinal
are related cracks
to the change
ofwere
zonesspotted
(Figureby7),
visual
frominspection. The to
motor vehicles presence of moisture
pedestrians, which onwillthebearch barrel later
discussed is more
in
significant
the paper. on the northern side and near its side edges (Figure 6), as expected. Longitudi-
nal cracks were formed in several places, following either the stone structure of the bridge
or its joints. The greatest cracks are in the crown zone, while there are none near the foun-
dations. Observation of the exact position of the cracks (Figure 4) shows that the cracks
are near the edges of the arch barrel, i.e., shorter cracks are 50–75 cm from the edge and a
great crack is 135 cm from the edge. The observation showed that these cracks are related
to the change of zones (Figure 7), from motor vehicles to pedestrians, which will be dis-
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13363 cussed later in the paper. 9 of 23
Observation of foundations on the site led to the conclusion that the bridge’s foun-
dations are formed on a rock. To confirm that, the soil was examined by geological testing.
Figure7.7.Photos
Figure Photosofofarch
archbarrel
barrelcracks
cracks(a)
(a)between
betweenand
andthrough
throughstone
stoneblocks,
blocks,(b)
(b)on
onthe
thewet
wetside
sideofof
the arch barrel, (c) through binder and (d) on the lower third of the arch barrel.
the arch barrel, (c) through binder and (d) on the lower third of the arch barrel.
3.3. Observation
Geological Testing
of foundations on the site led to the conclusion that the bridge’s founda-
Oneformed
tions are of the onmost critical
a rock. To stability
confirm factors
that, theinsoil
thewas
entire bridge structure
examined by geological represents
testing.the
stability of the soil on which it is founded. According to geological researchers and field
3.3. Geological
analyses in theTesting
vicinity of the bridge, the basis of this area consists of a Palaeozoic series
One of the most
in the Dinaric fraction, critical stability
composed factors in thefrom
predominantly entirePalaeozoic
bridge structure
schists represents
and slate sand-the
stability of the soil on
stones. Geological which it is
researchers founded.
show that theAccording
bridge is to geological
founded on a researchers
rocky mass and field
belonging
analyses in the vicinity
to the Carbon of the bridge,
part of “Internal the basis
Dinarides”. Theof this area of
location consists of a Palaeozoic
the bridge itself belongs series in
to the
the Dinaric
area fraction,
of Phyllite (Ph)composed predominantly
and the Sericite from
shale (Sse). Palaeozoic
Sericite shalesschists
are rocksand slate sandstones.
created by a pro-
Geological researchers show
gressive metamorphosis that the bridge
of feldspathic andisquartz
founded on a rocky
sandstones. Inmass belonging
contrast, to the
the phyllites
Carbon part of “Internal Dinarides”. The location of the bridge itself
are formed by a metamorphosis of the clay and alevrolite sediments, rich with organic belongs to the area of
Phyllite (Ph)
matter [31]. and the Sericite shale (Sse). Sericite shales are rocks created by a progressive
metamorphosis
Engineering of feldspathic and quartz sandstones.
geological characteristics of the siteInshow
contrast,
thatthe
thephyllites
bridge is arewell-posi-
formed
by a metamorphosis
tioned in relation toof the the clayofand
flow thealevrolite
river andsediments, rich with organic
the close environment. matter
The axis of a[31].
bridge
withEngineering
an azimuthgeological
240° (60°)characteristics
is normal to the of the site show
foliation thatrock.
of the the bridge
River flowis well-positioned
has the same
inazimuth
relationconstantly
to the flowasofthe theriver
riverprogresses,
and the closeso environment.
the river erosion Theonaxis of part
this a bridge
of the with an
stream
azimuth 240 ◦ (60◦ ) is normal to the foliation of the rock. River flow has the same azimuth
is minimal. However, just outside the bridge, on the right and left coastal side, fewer rift
constantly
structuresas andthecrack
riversystems
progresses, so the
(Figure 8) river erosion
are partly on this
filled and part of open.
partly the stream is minimal.
The fill is mainly
However, just outside the bridge, on the right and left coastal
made of clay minerals or shale detritus. These small rifts usually originated fromside, fewer rift structures
shale,
and crack
which thesystems
ground (Figure
structure 8) is
are partly
made of,filled
with and partly
a lower open.
degree ofThe fill is mainly
crystallinity. Eachmade of
of these
clay minerals or shale detritus. These small rifts usually originated from shale, which the
ground structure is made of, with a lower degree of crystallinity. Each of these properties,
including the genesis of the rocks, makes them less resistant to the atmospheric influences.

properties, including the genesis of the rocks, makes them less resistant to the atmospheric
influences.
Figure 8. Cracks and rift in the rocky mass under the bridge foundation observed at site.
Figure 8. Cracks and rift in the rocky mass under the bridge foundation observed at site.
Themeasurements
The measurements and
and observations
observations showed
showedno nomovements
movementsand andchanges
changesin the
in the
bridge structure
bridge structure that would significantly affect the structural stability. To prevent
would significantly affect the structural stability. To prevent thethe
lossof
loss of rock
rock material
material and the creation
creation of
of rifts
riftsand
andcracks,
cracks,ititisisnecessary
necessarytotomaintain
maintainthe
the
environment
environment around
around the foundation
foundation andand prevent
preventthe
thedestruction
destructionofofrocks
rockstriggered
triggeredbyby
vegetation
vegetationemerging
emergingininthe
thecracks
cracksofofthe
therocks.
rocks.
3.4.
3.4.Geophysical
GeophysicalTesting
Testing
To obtain a general overview
To obtain a general overviewofofthe thebridge,
bridge,thethe non-destructive
non-destructive research
research method
method was
was used to determine the physical characteristics of its internal structure.
used to determine the physical characteristics of its internal structure. Geophysical explo- Geophysical
exploration
ration was was performed
performed usingusing geoelectrical
geoelectrical tomography
tomography by applying
by applying specific
specific electrical
electrical re-
resistance parameter along six parallel profiles set along the entire length of the bridge [32].
sistance parameter along six parallel profiles set along the entire length of the bridge [32].
The primary objectives of this exploration were detection of the bridge’s internal structure
The primary objectives of this exploration were detection of the bridge’s internal structure
and analysis of uniformity of the materials used in bridge fillings. Measuring on the
and analysis of uniformity of the materials used in bridge fillings. Measuring on the bridge
bridge in Ivanjica with a non-destructive method of geo-electrical scanning, according to
in Ivanjica with a non-destructive method of geo-electrical scanning, according to the spe-
the specific electric resistance (SER), was performed by semi-automated procedure with
cific electric resistance (SER), was performed by semi-automated procedure with digital
digital equipment consisting of the resist meter Geophysical Resistivity, Self-Potential and
equipment consisting of the resist meter Geophysical Resistivity, Self-Potential and IP Me-
IP Meter rpm 12 IP and Electrode Selector System ES 4951, made of electro toggle, multi-
ter rpm 12 IP and Electrode Selector System ES 4951, made of electro toggle, multi-wire
wire cables and metal electrodes. The obtained results were software processed by the
cables and metal electrodes. The obtained results were software processed by the
RES2Dinv program and presented in the form of two-dimensional vertical profiles through
RES2Dinv program and presented in the form of two-dimensional vertical profiles
the bridge’s construction under the tracking surface and pedestrian paths. Measurements
through the bridge’s construction under the tracking surface and pedestrian paths. Meas-
on the stone bridge were performed according to the rectilinear profiles of the standard
urements
length of 50onm the stone bridge
according were
to the performed
Wenner according
dispositive withtooperative
the rectilinear
depthprofiles of the
grip, which
standard length of 50 m according to the Wenner dispositive with operative
indicates the presence of filling material up to the arch structure under the footpaths and depth grip,
which indicates
pavement surfaces. the presence of filling material up to the arch structure under the foot-
paths and pavement
Based on the obtained surfaces.
scan results along 6 (six) profiles placed on track and along
Based on the obtained
pedestrian paths, six electric 2D scan results
models along
were 6 (six) The
obtained. profiles placed
profile on track
positions and along
are shown on
pedestrian paths, six electric 2D models were obtained. The profile
the basis (Figure 9), and 2D models are shown graphically in appropriate colours, rangingpositions are shown
on the
from 20basis (Figure
to 3100 Ω·m.9), Forand 2D models
a spatial are shownof
understanding graphically in appropriate
the distribution colours,
of electrical rang-
resistivity
ing from
below the20 to 3100 surface,
bridge’s Ω⋅m. Forfoura spatial
crossunderstanding
sections, A-A’,ofB-B’,
the distribution
C-C’ and D-D’,of electrical resis-
were made
tivity below the bridge’s surface, four cross sections, A-A’, B-B’, C-C ‘and
(Figure 10). Cross-section profiles are created from data obtained from longitudinal profilesD-D’, were made
(Figure
using 10). Cross-section
software SURFER 8. profiles are created from data obtained from longitudinal pro-
filesThe
usingattachment SURFER
software shows three8. longitudinal profiles (1-1, 2-2, 3-3). The first profile, 1-1,
is positioned on a pedestrian walkway near the edge of the arch. The dominant value of
the lower electrical resistivity is 40 to 80 Ω·m, which is probably the result of a significant
presence of moisture in the materials. More values, from 500 to over 3000 Ω·m (from
yellow to dark red on the legend), indicate the presence of dry materials, both in the zone
of filling and just below the tracking surface and pedestrian paths. Immediately below the
traffic and pedestrian zones, to a depth of 1.5 to 2 m, high electrical resistance also indicates
the presence of various building materials used during the installation of infrastructure
along the bridge (water supply, electric cables, etc.). By observing the results obtained by
geo-electric scanning, primarily shown in Section 3.3, it has been found that the filling of
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
the bridge is heterogeneous and, most likely, there are well-cured rocky crumblings11and of 24
earth materials that are mutually mixed.
Figure Geo-electricscanning
Figure9.9. Geo-electric scanningwithwithresults
resultsof of
thethe distribution
distribution of electrical
of electrical resistivity
resistivity Ω·m showing
in showing
in Ω⋅m the change
the change in
in dryness
dryness of the material
of the material from
from left leftright
to the to the rightofcoast
coast of the (from
the bridge bridgetop
(from top to bottom:
to bottom: plan withplan with profile
profile positions,
positions, profile profile 3-3,
3-3, profile
2-2, profile
profile 1-1). 1-1).
2-2, profile
Based on the results analysed, it was found out that the infill of the bridge is hetero-
geneous and well-compacted rock fragments and pottery are most likely present mixed
materials. The obtained electrical resistivity values vary extensively, from 40 to 80 to over
3000 Ω·m (from blue to dark red colour on the legend of obtained 2D electrical models).
Inside the bridge, there are no cavities filled with water or air in the filling zone, affecting
the pavement ribbons’ settlement. Lower electrical resistivities from 40 to 80 Ω·m (variants
of blue on the legend of obtained 2D electrical models) are most likely due to the signifi-
cant presence of moisture in the materials. There is no doubt that the filling materials in
the bridge’s construction have often been there before being moistened by atmospheric
precipitation. Higher values, from 500 to over 3000 Ω·m (from yellow to dark red on the
legend of obtained 2D electric models), indicate the presence of drier materials, both in the
filling zone and immediately below the pavement and pedestrian trail. Immediately below
Figure 10. Geo-electric scanning with results of the distribution of electrical resistivity in Ω⋅m showing the change in dry-
ness of the material from traffic road to the arch barrel (from left to right: profile C-C, profile D-D).
thewith
Figure 9. Geo-electric scanning roadresults
surface anddistribution
of the footpaths,oftoelectrical
depths resistivity Ω⋅m
of 1.5 to 2inm, high electrical
showing resistivities
the change indicate
in dryness
of the material from left to the right coast
various of the bridge
construction (from top
materials to bottom:
used during plan with profile
the burial positions, profile
of infrastructure 3-3, profilealong
installations
2-2, profile 1-1). the bridge (plumbing, electrical cables, etc.).
Figure 10.
Figure 10. Geo-electric
Geo-electricscanning
scanningwith
withresults
resultsofofthe distribution
the of of
distribution electrical resistivity
electrical in Ω⋅m
resistivity in Ωshowing the change
·m showing in dry-
the change in
ness of the material from traffic road to the arch barrel (from left to right: profile C-C, profile D-D).
dryness of the material from traffic road to the arch barrel (from left to right: profile C-C’, profile D-D’).
However, it should be noted that lower electrical resistance is due to the presence
of moist material, very likely in the fill of the bridge, due to its inability to be drained
by gravity. Moreover, by observing the bridge, it was noticed that its parts closer to the
edges, primarily located on the north side, are affected by moisture, which can potentially
endanger the structure of the stone material. To prevent damage of the bridge under
the influence of water and moisture, it is necessary to check the drainage channels and
waterproofing of the bridge during the repair.
To also examine the spatial distribution of electrical resistivities in the form of trans-
verse cross sections, values of electrical resistivities are taken from 2D electrical models
and cross sections are made at 10, 20, 30 and 40 m, looking from left to right, along with 2D
electrical models, which are marked as A-A’ , B-B’, C-C’ and D-D’. The data are processed
using SURFER 8 software. We can also see higher electrical resistivity materials on trans-
verse electrical cross sections, corresponding to the materials used to cover the pavement
surface and for additional construction works. The material’s electrical resistivity is above
500 Ω·m and isolines will, most probably, follow the spatial and shape form of burial of
infrastructural installations.
Through the comparative analysis of the position of the cracks at the arch bridge and
the results of the geo-electric scan, it can be noticed that the cracks are most pronounced
between the profiles 1-1 and 2-2 in the longitudinal section, that is, positioned around the
C-C profile to the D-D profile in the cross section. By cr-cutting these profiles, it can be
concluded that the lowest value of electrical resistivity (blue colour) was recorded in the
cracks due to the presence of moisture in the fill. As mentioned above, under the traffic
load, the filling puts pressure on the side walls, which can cause separation of the wing
walls of the bridge from the vault, causing the appearance of longitudinal cracks. This
lateral pressure is higher and more pronounced if the fill of the bridge is moistened.
3.5. Physical–Mechanical Testing of Stone Structure

To determine the quality of stone material that the bridge is made of and its physical
and mechanical characteristics, laboratory tests were conducted on stone samples obtained
by destructive method—by drilling the material (Figure 11b,c). Sampling was performed
with a 5 cm inner bore drill, three drill core samples were extracted, each with a length
of 40 cm, and five testing samples were made from each of them. Samples were taken
from the arch barrel, the spandrel wall and the stone wall. Sampling areas are shown in
Figure 11a [30].
To determine the quality of stone material that the bridge is made of and its physical
and mechanical characteristics, laboratory tests were conducted on stone samples ob-
tained by destructive method—by drilling the material (Figure 11b,c). Sampling was per-
formed with a 5 cm inner bore drill, three drill core samples were extracted, each with a
Sustainability 2021, 13, 13363 length of 40 cm, and five testing samples were made from each of them. Samples13were of 23
taken from the arch barrel, the spandrel wall and the stone wall. Sampling areas are shown
in Figure 11a [30].
Figure 11. Taking a drilling sample for laboratory analysis: (a) positions of samples, (b) process of
Figure 11. Taking a drilling sample for laboratory analysis: (a) positions of samples, (b) process of
sampling the wing wall and (c) process of sampling the stone fence.
sampling the wing wall and (c) process of sampling the stone fence.
Studies have
Studies have shown
shown that
thatsandstone
sandstonewith withananarenaceous
arenaceous structure and
structure cluster
and sizesize
cluster be-
tween 0.05
between and
0.05 and2 2mmmmandandmassive
massivetexture,
texture,or orhomogeneous
homogeneousassembly,
assembly, was
was used
used toto con-
con-
struct the bridge, which indicates a uniform quality of the built-in stone.
struct the bridge, which indicates a uniform quality of the built-in stone. The degradation The degradation
process that
process that led
led to
to the
the decay
decay of of stone
stone arises
arises toto the
the depth
depth ofof 11cm,
cm,after
afterwhich
which thethe stone
stone isis
homogenous and does not show any signs of deterioration. Based
homogenous and does not show any signs of deterioration. Based on the tested values of on the tested values of
the physical–mechanical properties shown in Table 1, we can conclude
the physical–mechanical properties shown in Table 1, we can conclude that according to that according to
the volume
the volume mass,
mass, the
the stone
stone used
used belongs
belongs toto aa medium-hard
medium-hardstone, stone,with
withhigh
highporosity
porosityand and
the water
the water absorbency
absorbency [33].
[33].
The compressive strength of the stone in the dry state is moderate, visible on the KIA
0068/14 AGK Table 1. Results
sample, andofittesting of stone
is classified samples.
between low and moderate, KIA 0069-70/14 AGK.
All the values obtained correspond to the properties of sandstone. Based on the tests, it
Mineralogical–Petrologi-
can be concluded that the degradation processes do not affect the deeper parts of the stone
Physical–Mechanical Properties
Laboratory Mark of the Samples
cal Composition
blocks but only their surface layer.
Sa
Bulk Density with Pores and
Bulk Density without Pores
Coefficient of Bulk Density
m 3.6. Biological Analysis of Damage on the Stone Bridge Overburden Pressure in

Water Absorption (%)
Dry Condition (MPa)

pl
and Cavities (g/cm3)
As mentioned above, visual inspection showed both high degree of stone degradation
Cavities (g/cm3)
e and loss of stone material, which is expressed on the arch bridge but also on the parapet.
Type of Rock
Loca-
Porosity (%)
N
Structure
The most destructive form of stone decomposition in the bridge is the formation of black
Texture
tion
u crust, manifested through separating a thinner or thicker layer of material from the parapet.
m In addition, morphological changes of the stone surface in the form of relief decomposition
be of the stone are also noticed, manifested by the rounding of edges, corners or entire
r stone surfaces, alveolar impairments or flushing of stone components, and thus causing
cracks of irregular shape. Figure 12a shows the appearance of decolourisation on both
the parapet and spandrel wall, which is a consequence of physical and chemical factors.
This is particularly visible on the parapet of the bridge where the black crust is detected
by depositing solid particles of soot, dust and other harmful aerosols on the surface and
within the available pores of the stone.
At the face of the bridge, seen from the upstream side, several spots are observed in
the spotlight in the form of white stains and edges (Figure 12b), indicating the direction and
level of circulation/movement of moisture that was carried by dissolved salts. Moreover,
the efflorescence can be seen on the arch barrel (Figure 12d). Though visible to the naked
eye, this form of degradation, apart from aesthetically diverting white stains, is less harmful
than subflorescence, which mechanically destroys the stone structure inside the assembly.
In the northern part of the bridge, the dominant bio-colonisation is represented by lower
plants (lichens, algae, mushrooms and moss) and, to a lesser extent, by higher plants.
Table 1. Results of testing of stone samples.
Laboratory Mark of the Samples Mineralogical–Petrological

Physical–Mechanical Properties
Composition
Bulk Density with Pores and
Bulk Density without Pores
Coefficient of Bulk Density
Overburden Pressure in
Sample Number
Dry Condition (MPa)

Water Absorption (%)
and Cavities (g/cm3 )
Cavities (g/cm3 )
Location
Type of Rock
Porosity (%)
Structure
Texture
Belt course, Wing wall, Arch barrel,
Arenaceous Arenaceous Arenaceous

KIA 0068/
right coast right coast right coast
Sandstone
max. 4.07
min. 3.97
14 AGK
massive
max. 80
min. 40
1 2.231 2.594 14 0.860 4.01 64
KIA 0069/
Sandstone
max. 4.50
min. 4.00
massive
14AGK
max. 62
min. 44
2 2.222 2.584 14.1 0.859 4.18 51
KIA 0070/
Sandstone
max. 4.38
min. 4.18
14 AGK
massive
max. 64
min. 42
3 2.224 2.609 14.8 0.852 4.28 52
By biological testing, a high degree of biodegradation of the surface of the embedded

stone was determined, and in the well-developed biofilm, there are lichens, moss, RIF
(microcolonial mushrooms), filamentous micromycetes, yeasts and bacteria. Chemical
testing on a sample of hardened crust from the vault of the bridge diagnosed that the
crust is brighter, with a thickness of up to 3 mm, and that in the composition of this crust
is CaCO3 .
3.7. Structural Analysis

The structural behaviour of the bridge is based on a numerical model of the structure
for static and dynamic analysis of construction. Behaviour under load is crucial for deter-
mination of causes of deformations along the structure, i.e., for determining the causes of
longitudinal cracks on the arch barrel of the bridge. This kind of numerical analysis can
also be used for structural analysis after reinforcement (static restoration).
Analysis was conducted on a 3D simulation model using Tower software that is
based on finite element analysis. It was used to trace the flexible behaviour of the arch
barrel under loads. A numerical model with the exact geometry of the arch barrel, its
loads and characteristics of used materials was made based on the data gathered through
surveying, measuring and observation of the structure on site (Chapter 3.2), as well as the
data from laboratory testing—materials testing [19], characteristics of the terrain [20] and
geophysical testing [21]. Due to deterioration of stone [19], which also affected the stones
on the arch barrel (thickness of deterioration 1 cm), the effective height of the stone would
be reduced to 95 cm (keystone) and to 170 cm (abutments) based on the factor of safety.
The initial height of the stone is given in Section 3.2, where height of the keystone is 97 cm,
up to 172 cm in the abutments. The value of Young’s module of elasticity ‘E’ would be
E = 1.5 × 107 kN/m2 , as it is for the masonry structures [22]. Model was made as an arch
of 1 m width.
Figure 12. Close-up of bridge structure: (a) decolorisation of the parapet and spandrel wall, (b) forming of white stains
Figure 12. Close-up of bridge structure: (a) decolorisation of the parapet and spandrel wall, (b) forming of white stains and
and edges, (c) sampling for biological analysis, (d) efflorescence of arch barrel and (e) change of colour on the wing wall.
edges, (c) sampling for biological analysis, (d) efflorescence of arch barrel and (e) change of colour on the wing wall.
3.7.1.At
Load the Analysis
face of the bridge, seen from the upstream side, several spots are observed in
the spotlight in the form of white stains and edges (Figure 12b), indicating the direction
Geophysical testing has confirmed that the fill of the bridge was made of well-cracked
and
stonelevel
and of circulation/movement
earth materials and that, in ofsome
moisturepartsthat was
of the carried
bridge, theby dissolved
material wassalts. More-
wet, which
over, the efflorescence can be seen on the arch barrel (Figure
was taken into account. Thus, the dead load of the bridge in the model was 20 kN/m 12d). Though visible to the 3.
naked eye, this form of degradation, apart from aesthetically diverting
The weight of the roadway was also considered as dead load. It was made of stone mass white stains, is less
harmful
with asphalt thanas subflorescence, which mechanically
the finishing layer—the total heightdestroys
≈ 90 cm.the stone structure
Installations wereinside
placedthe in
assembly. In the northern part of the bridge, the dominant bio-colonisation
this layer, so in the model, for safety reasons, the whole dead load of the roadway was is represented
by lower 3plants
23 kN/m (lichens,were
. Calculations algae,
mademushrooms and moss)
for the maximum loadand,casetowhen
a lesser
theextent, by higher
load from the fill
plants.
of the bridge is gravitationally applied on the arch barrel, but the angle of distribution of
By biological
the load testing, a high
was not calculated. Load degree
analysisof biodegradation
was calculated of thethe surface
same as the of arch
the embedded
barrel for
stone was determined, and in the
the depth of 1 m, and it is shown in Table 2. well-developed biofilm, there are lichens, moss, RIF
(microcolonial
Besides themushrooms),
self-load of thefilamentous
structure and micromycetes,
the dead load yeasts
from the and
fill bacteria. Chemical
of the bridge, there
testing
are liveon a sample
loads caused of by
hardened
traffic. crust from the
According vault regulations
to valid of the bridgeindiagnosed
the Republic thatoftheSerbia
crust
is brighter, with a thickness of up to 3 mm, and that in the composition
about the values of loads on bridges [34], this bridge can be classified in two categories of this crust is
CaCO .
(Table 3): II category—bridges on a trunk road, regional road and arterial road bridges,
3
and III category—bridges on all other roads. Thus, they correspond to two traffic load
3.7. Structural
calculating Analysis
schemes, V600 and V300, that would be taken into consideration (Figure 13). For
the IIThe
category bridges
structural calculation
behaviour scheme
of the bridgeV600, it means
is based that, during
on a numerical the load
model calculation,
of the structure
the considered load of a typical vehicle is 600 kN, applied to the most
for static and dynamic analysis of construction. Behaviour under load is crucial for deter- inconvenient area
of the roadway (Figure 13, scheme V600). This force was replaced
mination of causes of deformations along the structure, i.e., for determining the causes of in the model with a
uniform distributed load of 33.3 kN/m 2 . For III category roads that have the calculation
longitudinal cracks on the arch barrel of the bridge. This kind of numerical analysis can
also be used for structural analysis after reinforcement (static restoration).
scheme V300, it means that all the load from scheme V600 will be divided by half. All
live loads on the roadway are applied with the coefficient for dynamic load Kd, calculated
using the formula Kd = 1.4 − 0.008 L ≥ 1.00 for road bridges. The effective span between
supports ‘L’ is approximately 1.2 m.
Table 2. Dead loads.
Sustainability 2021, 13,Dead

x FORLoads
PEER REVIEW d1 (m) d2 (m) γ (kN/m3 ) g1 (kN/m) g2 (kN/m)
17 of 24
Self-load of the arch barrel 0.97 1.72 23.00 22.31 39.56
Weight of the filling (from the top of the arch
0.25 5.53 20.00 5.00 110.60
barrel to the right support)
half. All live loads on the roadway are applied with the coefficient for dynamic load Kd,
Weight of the filling (from thecalculated using the formula Kd = 1.4—0.008 L ≥ 1.00 for road bridges. The effective span
top of the arch
0.25 6.01 20.00 5.00 120.2
barrel to the left support)
between supports ‘L’ is approximately 1.2 m.
Weight of the roadway and roadway structure
0.90 𝐾𝑑 = 1.4 − 0.008 × 28.8 =23.00
1.17 ≈ 1.2 ≥ 1.0
20.70
with all its layers (d = const)
d1 —height above crown of arch, d2 —height above right/left support, γ—specific gravity of material, g1 —dead load on/above crown of
arch, g2 —dead load on/aboveTable 3. Calculating
right/left support. scheme for bridge loads based on bridge category.
Kd = 1.4 − 0.008 × 28.8 = 1.17 ≈ 1.2 ≥ 1.0 Calculation

Classification of Bridge
Table 3. Calculating scheme for bridge loads based on bridge category.
Schemes
I—motorwayofbridges
Classification Bridge V600 + V300
Calculation Schemes
I—motorway
II—trunk road, regional bridges
road and arterial road bridges V600 + V300
V600
II—trunk road, regional road and arterial road bridges V600
Lane widths ≥ 6.0 m V300 + V300
III—bridges onall
allother
otherroads
roads Lane widths ≥ 6.0 m V300 + V300
III—bridges on
Lanewidths
Lane widths < 6.0
< 6.0 mm V300
V300
Figure
Figure13.
13.Scheme
Schemeofofa typical vehicle
a typical type
vehicle V600/300,
type with
V600/300, loading
with scheme
loading on the
scheme on traffic roadroad
the traffic and and
sidewalk usedused
sidewalk for nu-
for
merical analysis.
numerical analysis.
Because
Becauseofofthe
thelocation
locationofofthe
thelongitudinal
longitudinalcrack
crackon
onthe
thebridge,
bridge,the
thenumerical
numericalanalysis
analysis
willbe
will beconducted
conductedusing
usingfour
fourloading
loadingschemes
schemes(Figure
(Figure14):
14):
2
1.1. Uniform
Uniformdistributed
distributedload
load p1p=1 3= kN/m
3 kN/m2
2.2. Uniform
Uniformdistributed
distributedload 5 kN/m2
load p2p=2 5= kN/m 2
3.3. Scheme
SchemeV600 V600 𝑝p==𝑞q××𝐾K 𝑑d
pp3131= =
33.33
33.33× 1.2 = 40
× 1.2 kN/m
= 40 2
kN/m 2 p32 =p532× =
1.25 =×61.2 = 6 2kN/m2
kN/m
4.4. Scheme V300
Scheme V300 𝑝 = 𝑞
p = q×K× 𝐾𝑑d
pp4141= =
16.66
16.66× 1.2 = 20
× 1.2 kN/m
= 20 2
kN/m 2 p42 =p542× =
1.25 =×61.2 = 6 2kN/m2
kN/m
Sustainability 2021,
Sustainability 13, 13,
2021, x FOR PEER REVIEW
13363 18 of
1724
of 23
Figure 14. Names and positions of loads applied to the bridge in the finite element model.
Figure 14. Names and positions of loads applied to the bridge in the finite element model.
3.7.2. Deformation Analysis of the Structure
3.7.2. Deformation Analysis of the Structure
Using a 3D structural model, the behaviour of the arch was analysed based on the
Using
finite a 3D method.
element structuralStructural
model, the behaviour
analysis of the arch was
and deformation analysedcalculations
(deflection) based on the were
finite element
carried out method.
for deadStructural
loads, and analysis and deformation
four cases of live load (deflection)
situations were calculations were
given through
carried
load out for dead
analysis. loads,14and
Figure four the
shows cases of live
exact load situations
position werethat
of live loads given through
effect load
the greatest
analysis. Figure 14 shows the exact position of live loads that effect the
deflections of the arch barrel for each of the considered cases, and the numerical analysis greatest deflections
of the
witharch barrel foriseach
deflections shown of the considered
in Table 4. Thecases, and the
occurrence ofnumerical
asymmetric analysis with deflec-
deformations on the
tions
archis barrel
shownunderin Tablethe4.uniform
The occurrence
distributedof asymmetric
loads on alldeformations
of its parts ison thethe arch barrel of
consequence
under the uniform
uneven foundation distributed
of supportsloadsand,on because
all of its of
parts
that,is the
the uneven
consequenceweight of of
uneven
the fill,foun-
which
dation
is theofmain
supports
dead and,
load because of that,
of the bridge. thethat
For uneven
reason,weight of the
all cases fill, which
of uniform is the main
distributed load
dead load1,of2,the
(loads bridge.
3) have theFor that reason,
greatest all cases
deflections of uniform
on the left side distributed loadquarter
and in the first (loads 1,of2,the
3) have
span, the
7 mgreatest
from thedeflections on the left side
supports. Considering andresult,
every in theit first
leadsquarter of the span,that
to the conclusion 7 mone
from supports.
of the most Considering
inconvenient loadsevery
is theresult, it leads
live load V600 tointhe conclusion
the that one
case of position p3,ofwhich
the mostis the
inconvenient
consequence loads is the liveexplained
of previously load V600 in the case
regulations thatofrequired
positionadditional
p3, whichloads is theonconse-
that part
of construction.
quence of previously Large deformations
explained can also
regulations thatbe seen foradditional
required the load caseloads V600/position
on that part of p12,
causing theLarge
construction. deflection of 6.37 mm
deformations canonalso
the 3/4 of the
be seen forspan,
the 20–21 m from
load case the left support.
V600/position p12,
causing the deflection of 6.37 mm on the 3/4 of the span, 20–21 m from the left support.
Table 4. Arch deformation under different load cases.
Table 4. Arch deformation under different loadfrom
Distance cases.
the Reference Axis 0.00 (m)
Calculation schemes
6.99 7.22 8.39 19.36 19.60 20.00 20.40 20.88 21.69 22.55
Distance from the Reference Axis 0.00 (m)
0 Dead
Calculation load
schemes −3.88 −3.87 −3.68 −1.94 −1.99 −2.08 −2.14 −2.21 −2.27 −2.26
Deflections of arch-ƒ(mm)
1 Dead load + Uniform Distributed Load 3 kN/m2 6.99 −3.937.22 −3.928.39−3.7419.36−2.0619.60−2.1120.00

−2.18 20.40
−2.24 20.88
−2.31 21.69
−2.35 22.55
−2.32
2 Dead load + Uniform Distributed Load 5 kN/m2 −3.96 −3.95 −3.80 −2.14 −2.19 −2.26 −2.32 −2.37 −2.41 −2.36
0 Dead load −3.88 −3.87 −3.68 −1.94 −1.99 −2.08 −2.14 −2.21 −2.27 −2.26
2 −7.78 −7.80 −7.56 0.90 0.91 0.89 0.85 0.79 0.67 0.54
position 3 (p31 = 40 kN/m )
3 Dead load + V600
Dead load + Uniform Distributed
position 12 (pLoad 3 2
31 = 40 kN/m ) −0.78 −0.76 −0.67 −6.03 −6.13 −6.26 −6.34 −6.37 −6.26 −5.96
1 −3.93 −3.92 −3.74 −2.06 −2.11 −2.18 −2.24 −2.31 −2.35 −2.32
kN/m2
Deflections of arch-ƒ(mm)
2 −5.57 −5.57 −5.37 −0.91 −0.94 −0.98 −1.03 −1.09 −1.16 −1.19
position 3 (p41 = 20 kN/m )
4 Dead load + V300
2 −2.73 −2.71 −2.57 −3.62 −3.71 −3.83 −3.91 −3.99 −4.01 −3.89
position 13 (pLoad
Dead load + Uniform Distributed 41 = 20
5 kN/m )
2 −3.96 −3.95 −3.80 −2.14 −2.19 −2.26 −2.32 −2.37 −2.41 −2.36
I∆ƒmax I
∆ƒmax= kN/m 2
ƒ(V600/position3)-ƒ (dead load) 3.91 3.93 3.88
∆ƒmax= ƒ(V600/position12)-ƒ (dead load) 4.08 4.14 4.18 4.20 4.16 3.99 3.70
position 3 (p31 = 40
∆ƒ—difference kN/m
of deflection
2)
−7.78 (without
under the sidewalk −7.80 uniform
−7.56 load)
0.90and roadway
0.91 0.89 maximum
(with 0.85 load
0.79 0.67
intensity). 0.54
3 Dead load + V600
−0.78 −0.76 −0.67 −6.03 −6.13 −6.26 −6.34 −6.37 −6.26 −5.96
kN/m2)
4 Dead load + V300 −5.57 −5.57 −5.37 −0.91 −0.94 −0.98 −1.03 −1.09 −1.16 −1.19
kN/m2)
−2.73 −2.71 −2.57 −3.62 −3.71 −3.83 −3.91 −3.99 −4.01 −3.89
kN/m2)
∆ƒmax= ƒ(V600/position3)-ƒ (dead load) 3.91 3.93 3.88
I∆ƒmaxI
∆ƒmax= ƒ(V600/position12)-ƒ (dead load) 4.08 4.14 4.18 4.20 4.16 3.99 3.70
∆ƒ—difference of deflection under the sidewalk (without uniform load) and roadway (with maximum load intensity).
While
Whileobserving
observingthe deformation
the deformation model, i.e.,i.e.,
model, the the
envelope of maximum
envelope of maximum and minimum
and mini-
deflection (Figure (Figure
mum deflection 15), the conclusion could be could
15), the conclusion that the bemost
that significant absolute change
the most significant in
absolute
deflections occurs 20.40occurs
change in deflections m from the m
20.40 leftfrom
support, at the
the left part where
support, at thelarge deformation
part where from
large defor-
the live load
mation fromV600/p12 wasV600/p12
the live load read. Deflections
was read.from dead load
Deflections from indead
that area
load are −2.14
in that mm,
area are
while the ones from V600/p12 are − 6.34 mm, so the difference is ∆ƒ = 4.20
−2.14 mm, while the ones from V600/p12 are −6.34 mm, so the difference is ∆ƒ = 4.20 mm. mm.
Figure15.
Figure 15.Diagrams
Diagramsofofarch
archdeflections
deflections
in in f(mm)
f(mm) duedue to different
to different load
load conditions
conditions (from
(from topbottom:
top to to bot-
tom: dead load, dead load + live load from V600/V300 positioned on the first third of
dead load, dead load + live load from V600/V300 positioned on the first third of the arch, dead the arch, dead
load + live load from V600/V300 positioned on the last third of the
load + live load from V600/V300 positioned on the last third of the arch). arch).
While observing the movement of deformations, i.e., the envelope of maximum and
minimum deflection (Figure 16), the conclusion could be that the biggest absolute change in
deflections occurs 20.40 m from the left support, at the part where large deformation from
the live load V600/p12 was read. Deflections from dead load in that area are −2.14 mm,
while the ones from V600/p12 are −6.34 mm, so the difference is ∆ƒ = 4.20 mm.
While observing the movement of deformations, i.e., the envelope of maximum and
minimum deflection (Figure 16), the conclusion could be that the biggest absolute change
in deflections occurs 20.40 m from the left support, at the part where large deformation
from the live load V600/p12 was read. Deflections from dead load in that area are −2.14
mm, while the ones from V600/p12 are −6.34 mm, so the difference is ∆ƒ = 4.20 mm.
Figure 16. 16.

Figure Envelope
Envelopeof of
minimum
minimumand andmaximum deflectionsononthe
maximum deflections the construction
construction under
under every
every load load case
case in in f(mm),
f(mm), with with
highlighted position
highlighted of of
position the largest
the largestamplitudes resultingininlongitudinal
amplitudes resulting longitudinal cracks
cracks on arch
on the the arch barrel.
barrel.
IfIfwe
wenotice
notice the
the location
locationofofthe
thecracks,
cracks,it isit possible to see
is possible to the
seelocation of theof
the location greatest
the greatest
crack on the bridge in the same area where the greatest deflection changes happen, on the
crack on the bridge in the same area where the greatest deflection changes happen, on the
line which separates the sidewalk from the roadway. For instance, if there are no users
line which separates the sidewalk from the roadway. For instance, if there are no users on
on the sidewalk, deflections will result only from self-load. In addition, if in the same
the sidewalk,
moment a vehicle deflections will result
of the category only
V600 frominself-load.
passes, In addition,
position p12, if in5the
i.e., approx. samethe
m from moment
a edge
vehicle of the
of the category
bridge, V600
the most passes, difference
significant in position in p12, i.e., approx.
deflection under the5m from the
sidewalk andedge of
the bridge,will
roadway theoccur.
most Thus,
significant
the difference is ∆ƒin= deflection
difference 4.20 mm and under
it willthe sidewalk
cause and roadway
the appearance
will
of aoccur. Thus, crack
longitudinal the difference is ∆ƒ to= separate
that will strive 4.20 mmthe and it will
bridge cause
in two the appearance
segments. As the of a
most significant
longitudinal crackcrack
thatwas
willspotted
strive on
to the line between
separate the sidewalk
the bridge and roadway,
in two segments. As the
the most
conclusion is that this crack results from the deformation’s amplitude,
significant crack was spotted on the line between the sidewalk and roadway, the which occurs under
the minimum and maximum loads. There are also the greatest shear stresses in the same
conclusion is that this crack results from the deformation’s amplitude, which occurs under
area due to the transverse forces which influence further bridge structure damages that
the minimum and maximum loads. There are also the greatest shear stresses in the same
appear among stone joints and directly through stone blocks.
area due to the transverse forces which influence further bridge structure damages that
appear among stone joints and directly through stone blocks.
4. Discussion
The bridge presented in this case study is listed as a part of the Spatial Cultural-
4.Historical
Discussion Units of Great Importance in the Republic of Serbia. Due to its position, this
bridge
Thestill represents
bridge one of in
presented thethis
primary
caseconnections in the as
study is listed cityaofpart
Ivanjica, which
of the leadsCultural-
Spatial to
its use daily. The research presented in this paper, including geological, geophysical, struc-
Historical Units of Great Importance in the Republic of Serbia. Due to its position, this
tural and biological analysis of the bridge, indicates permeation of different deterioration
bridge still represents one of the primary connections in the city of Ivanjica, which leads
processes, whose negligence may lead to the system’s severe decay or even collapse.
to its use daily. The
A detailed research
approach presented
to data collectioninand
thisanalysis
paper, of including
the bridge geological,
structure and geophysical,
the
structural and biological analysis of the bridge, indicates permeation
necessary steps for static restoration were previously discussed in the paper. Geological of different
deterioration processes,
testing was crucial in thewhose negligence
analysis may
process, as lead to thecracks
longitudinal system’s severe
can also decay
result fromor even
collapse.
foundation disruption [6]. Extensive research in this area eliminated the assumption
thatAmovements of the foundation
detailed approach lead to crack
to data collection and development.
analysis of theHowever, due to the
bridge structure and the
geological composition of the rock, its schistose and that it has the
necessary steps for static restoration were previously discussed in the paper. fault occurrence, regular
Geological
maintenance of the bridge is necessary to prevent the loss of stone material, which can
testing was crucial in the analysis process, as longitudinal cracks can also result from
be caused by vegetation as well. On the other hand, geophysical testing gave important
foundation disruption [6]. Extensive research in this area eliminated the assumption that
observations on the moisture content of materials used. This aspect of the research showed
movements
that changes ofin
thethe
foundation lead to crack
electric conductivity development.
of materials used wereHowever, due
relevant to the geological
indicators of
the change in moisture content through the bridge’s structure. This information was
crucial for a full understanding of the processes occurring and predicting possible future
behaviour. The change in moisture content indicated two main problems. Firstly, with
this occurring, stiffness of the infill material decreases, forming higher pressure on wing
walls, and thus leads to crack propagation. Secondly, the presence of moisture develops a
suitable environment for ice formation, thus leading to the degradation of the material’s
inner structure. As the sandstone used is classified as medium-hard, appearance of inner

stresses could cause significant damage. Nevertheless, biological testing also showed
that the material’s inner structure was not degraded by biological colonisation, although
superficial changes in colour can be seen with the naked eye. Apart from the aesthetically
altered surface caused by the presence of lower plants and the development of black crust,
the influence of these degradation processes did not change structural behaviour of the
construction so far.
As mentioned above, both physical and mechanical testing was developed, giving
all the necessary data for structural analysis. Precise defining of the bridge’s geometry
was crucial for further study and numerical models of bridge construction. This research
determined the bridge’s asymmetrical foundation, which resulted in a more significant
load from the fill of the bridge on the left side of its construction. This has also affected the
asymmetrical distribution of loads, causing greater deflections on the left side of construc-
tion. Consequently, added traffic loads on this side of the bridge increases deflections in
that area but also causes the uplifting of construction elements on the other side, where
longitudinal cracks appear. Loads on the right side of the structure also induce deflections,
resulting in great dilatations, up to 6 mm, which stones cannot uphold.
A case study showed that the leading cause of the longitudinal cracks are shear stresses
that appear when the live load is applied. Significant shear stresses in the transverse
direction are expected in the barrel, as the live load defined by standards for vehicle zones
is much higher than for pedestrian ones. This leads to fractures in stone structure because
of the low capacity of sandstone to shear stresses. The appearance of these cracks did not
lead to the collapse of the bridge, as they show limited bearing capacity in the transverse
direction, but to the formation of an alternative structural solution, two independent arches.
On the other hand, following the ingress of moisture, the existence of a crack leaves an
open path for the moisture entrance, thus continuing the process of degradation of the
inner structure. It is well known that, even though moisture does not directly influence
mechanical degradation, its impact on the degradation of the material’s inner structure
is significant. The city of Ivanjica, which belongs to the Moravica district, is famous for
its large temperature oscillations, which is a condition that favours processes of physical
degradation of material in the presence of moisture content. To investigate potential future
behaviour of the bridge that could lead to the collapse, three possible mechanisms have
to be evaluated: the opening of additional hinges in the arch barrel, which could lead to
the formation of the mechanism; the out-of-plane behaviour of the spandrel wall; and
the possible rotation of different parts. This is because the longitudinal crack forms two
‘’L” cross sections, whose rotation might lead to the collapse of the system. All three
possible failure mechanisms should be investigated more thoroughly to define the limit
conditions of the subject of this case study, thus defining its serviceability. Although a
significant reserve of strength exists even after the crack formation, the weathering cycles
and vegetation growth, recognised and investigated in this research, will modify the
structure’s stiffness. In this context, it is essential to provide remedial measures directed
towards cleaning biological colonisation and repointing the crack to prevent moisture
ingress, allow movement and independent behaviour of separated parts.
This research supports the theory of flexible behaviour of the arch barrel under load
as the cause for longitudinal cracks, as was stated in the references [19–21]. Moreover, the
case study confirms the opinion of the authors shown in the literature review [15,17,22–24],
that the pressure of the fill of the bridge to the spandrel wall under load can cause cracks
between the wing wall and arch barrel, which is proven with some minor cracks happening
on the bridge in Ivanjica.
Complete static restoration of the bridge has to be performed to provide further use of
the bridge. Static restoration has to eliminate the causes of deformations or reduce their
impact and provide further service for contemporary traffic loads. Restoration measures
have to be conducted in accordance with the methods of heritage preservation [35].
5. Conclusions
The case study for the arch stone bridge in Ivanjica, Serbia, has shown a part of a
research methodology for damaged stone bridge structures and opened new questions for
possible future investigation. This case study shows the response to typical problems in
masonry arch structures. Based on the research and analysis conducted in this paper, the
conclusion is that the only proper way to repair the existing bridge structure is investigating
a series of influences that could permeate and apply different types of tests. The main aim
of integrated research is to define possible causes of cracks and predict future behaviour of
the damaged structure. Historic survey and analysis on the site are vital for the following
structural analysis, shown in the paper. Each aspect investigated, geological, geophysical,
physical–mechanical and biological, gave important information of the possible causes of
crack development and possible future risks. As longitudinal cracks are not recognised as
the most typical crack pattern in arch bridge structures, all tests were vital to understanding
the causes and processes fully. On the one hand, the possible formation of alternative
structural systems that do not alter the structural stability of the whole, and possible failure
mechanisms, on the other hand, stress the importance of expansion of knowledge in this
area. Connecting past causes, current state and likely behaviour in the future, remedial
measures should include the following:
- Clean the structure from biological colonisation to stop potential further degradation.
- Prevent moisture ingress by repointing the crack with a flexible grout that would
not compromise the new-defined behaviour of the structure but close the path for
moisture entrance.
- Follow the propagation of cracks and their activity when the live load is applied.
- Investigate possible failure mechanisms, evaluate them in order to predict future
behaviour of the structure and set possible restrictions on its use.
Although arch barrels show significant bearing capacities due to their geometry and
are rarely loaded in their ultimate capacity, their behaviour in the damaged condition is
uncertain and calls for further investigation to investigate possible failure modes. How-
ever, before continuing the initiated research in a broader scope, the remedial measures
mentioned above should be undertaken.
It is also necessary to consider recommendations for future use of the bridge. Heavy
traffic restrictions across the bridge and its displacement to a new bridge can be recom-
mended to prevent further degradation under the influence of the traffic load. For the
planned purpose of the city centre, using a bridge as a pedestrian zone was considered by
the authorities. That will help to preserve the bridge as part of the Spatial Cultural- Histori-
cal Units of Great Importance in the Republic of Serbia and, at the same time, contribute to
the tourist potential and place identity.
Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, N.M.S. and N.Š.; methodology, N.M.S., S.K. and N.Š.;
software, N.M.S.; validation, N.M.S., A.K. and N.Š.; formal analysis, A.K.; investigation, S.K. and
N.Š.; resources, M.P.; data curation, M.P. and A.K.; writing—original draft preparation, N.M.S.;
writing—review and editing, N.M.S., M.P. and A.K.; visualisation, N.M.S., N.Š.; supervision, N.Š.;
project administration, M.P.; funding acquisition, N.Š. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: This research was supported by the University of Belgrade, Faculty of Architec-
ture, LAB—Architectural Engineering Laboratory–Structural Problems of Architectural Buildings
and Laboratory of architectural space—Form, function and materialization. Research and used data
(geological, geophysical, laboratory physical-mechanical and biological testing) are part of the project
Reconstruction and recovery of Old bridge in Ivanjica, organised by Municipality of Ivanjica. We are
grateful to Dragoslav Nikolic for logistical support during site investigation.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Milani, G.; Lourenço, P.B. 3D non-linear behavior of masonry structures. Comput. Struct. 2012, 110–111, 133–150. [CrossRef]
2. Lacanna, G.; Lancellotta, R.; Ripepe, M. Integrating Modal Analysis and Seismic Interferometry for Structural Analysis and
Seismic Interferometry for Structural Dy-namic Response: The Case Study of Giotto’s Bell Tower in Florence (Italy). In Proceedings
of the COMPDYN 2019 7th ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational methods in structural Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, Crete, Greece, 24–26 June 2019; pp. 9–15.
3. Zampieri, P.; Zanini, M.A.; Faleschini, F.; Hofer, L.; Pellegrino, C. Failure analysis of masonry arch bridges subject to local pier
scour. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2017, 79, 371–384. [CrossRef]
4. Bergamo, O.; Campione, G.; Cucchiara, C.; Russo, G. Structural behavior of the old masonry bridge in the Gulf of Castellammare.
Eng. Fail. Anal. 2016, 62, 188–198. [CrossRef]
5. Choo, B.S.; Coutie, M.G.; Gong, N.G. The Effect of Cracks on the Behaviour of Masonry Arches. In Proceedings of the 9th
International Brick/Block Masonry Conference, Berlin, Germany, 13–16 October 1991; Volume 2, pp. 948–955.
6. Garrity, S.W. The Complex Engineering Design Challenges of Masonry arch Bridge Rehabilitation. In Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Preservation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Historical Buildings and Structures., Porto, Portugal,
22–24 July 2015; Amoêda, R.L., Piheiro, C., Eds.; 2015; pp. 139–150.
7. Gibbons, N.; Fanning, P. Progressive cracking in masonry arch bridges. Bridge Eng. 2016, 169, 93–112. [CrossRef]
8. Municipality of Ivanjica. Results of the competition: “Old Bazaar” and the Immediate Surroundings—The Conceptual Design of
the New Bridge in Ivanjica. Available online: https://ivanjica.gov.rs/rezultati-konkursa-stara-carsija-i-neposredno-okruzenje-
idejno-resenje-novog-mosta-u-ivanjici/?_rstr_nocache=rstr841618b9beb99b78 (accessed on 11 November 2021).
9. Miri, M.; Hughes, T.G. The Effect of Spandrel Wall Strengthening on the Load Capacity of Masonry Arch Bridges. In Proceedings of
the 10th Canadian Masonry Symposium, Baniff, Alberta, 8–12 June 2005; University of Calgary, Department of Civil Engineering:
Calgary, AB, Canada, 2005.
10. Ashurst, D. An Assessment of Repair and Strengthening Techniques for Brick and Stone Masonry Arch Bridges; Contractor Report 284;
Transport Research Laboratory: Crowthorne, UK, 1992.
11. Page, J. State of the Art Review. Masonry Arch Bridges; Transport research Laboratory: London, UK, 1993.
12. Page, J. A Guide to Repair and Strengthening of Masonry Arch Highway Bridges; TRL Report 204; Transport research Laboratory:
Crowthorne, UK, 1996.
13. McKibbins, L.D.; Melbourne, C.; Sawar, N.; Sicilia Gaillard, C. Masonry Arch Bridges: Condition Appraisal and Remedial Treatment;
CIRIA C656; Construction Insudtry Research and Information Association: London, UK, 2006.
14. Wilmers, W. Restoration of masonry arch bridges. Bridge Eng. 2012, 165, 135–146. [CrossRef]
15. Page, J. Repair and Strengthening of Arch Bridges; IABSE Reports; IABSE—International Association for Bridge and Structural
Engineering: Zürich, Switzerland, 1993; pp. 565–572.
16. Heyman, J. The Stone Skeleton. Int. J. Solids Struct. 1966, 2, 249–279. [CrossRef]
17. Lourenço, P.B.; Oliveira, D.V. Strengthening of Masonry Arch Bridges: Research and Applications. In Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Advances in Bridge Engineering: Bridges-Past, Present and Future, 26–28 June 2006, Brunel; Brunel
University: London, UK, 2006; pp. 107–116.
18. Giuriani, E.; Gubana, A.; Arenghi, A. Backfill and spandrels to limit the vault bending. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 1999, 42, 739–748.
19. Giuriani, E.; Gubana, A.; Arenghi, A. Structural Rehabilitation of Masonry Vaults. In Proceedings of the UNESCO-ICOMOS
Millennium Congress, Paris, France, 10–12 December 2001.
20. Tomor, A.K.; Melbourne, C. Monitoring Masonry Arch Bridge Response to Traffic Loading Using Acoustic Emission Techniques.
In Proceedings of the Arch’07—5th International Conference on Arch Bridges, Madeira, Portugal, 12–14 September 2007;
pp. 281–288.
21. Apreutesei, V. Strengthening of Stone Masonry Arch Bridges; Oliveira, D.V., Ed.; Technical University “Gh. Asachi” Romania and
Universidade do Minho, Escola de engenharia: Gumaraes, Portugal, 2005.
22. Boothby, T.E.; Hulet, M.K.; Stanton, T.R. Inspection, assessment and monitoring of Railroad arch bridges in Southwest Ern
Pennsylvania. In Arch Bridges IV—Advances in Assessment, Structural Design and Construction; Roca, P., Oñate, E., Eds.; CIMNE:
Barcelona, Spain, 2004; pp. 144–151.
23. Proske, D.; Gelder, V.P. Safety of Historical Stone Arch Bridges; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009.
24. Fanning, P.J.; Boothby, T.E.; Roberts, B.J. Longitudinal and transverse effects in masonry arch assessment. Constr. Build. Mater.
2001, 15, 51–60. [CrossRef]
25. Page, J.; Ives, D.A.; Ashurst, D. Deterioration and Repair of Masonry Arch Bridges. In Proceedings of the 9th International
Brick/Block Masonry Conference, Berlin, Germany, 13–16 October 1991; pp. 1591–1598.
26. De Arteaga, I.; Morer, P. The effect of geometry on the structural capacity of masonry arch bridges. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 34,
97–106. [CrossRef]
27. Conde, B.; Díaz-Vilariño, L.; Lagüela, S.; Arias, P. Structural analysis of Monforte de Lemos masonry arch bridge con-sidering the
influence of the geometry of the arches and fill material on the collapse load estimation. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 120, 630–642.
[CrossRef]
28. Frunzio, G.; Monaco, M.; Gesualdo, A. 3D F.E.M. analysis of a Roman arch bridge. In Historical Constructions: Possibilities of
Numerical and Experimental Techniques; Lourenço, P.B., Roca, P., Eds.; University of Minho: Guimarães, Portugal, 2001; pp. 591–598.
29. Oliveira, D.V.; Lourenço, P.B.; Lemos, C. Geometric issues and ultimate load capacity of masonry arch bridges from the northwest
Iberian Peninsula. Eng. Struct. 2010, 32, 3955–3965. [CrossRef]
30. IMS Institute for testing of materials-IMS Institute. Study on the Examination of the Condition of the Stone on the Stone Bridge in
IVANJICA—Stone Testing Report; Central Materials Testing Laboratory, Stone and Aggregate Laboratory of Institute for testing of
materials-IMS Institute: Belgrade, Serbia, 2015.
31. Ivanović, N. (Unpublished work); Geological Characteristics of the Terrain, Location Stone Bridge—Ivanjica; Geological Survey Report:
Belgrade, Serbia, 2014.
32. Vukadinović, M. (Unpublished work); Report of Geophysical Tests by the Method of Electric Scanning on the Stone Bridge in Ivanjica;
Belgrade, Serbia, 2014.
33. Bilbija, N.; Matović, V. Primenjena Petrografija: Svojstva i Primene Kamena; Grad̄evinska knjiga: Beograd, Serbia, 2009.
34. Službeni List SFRJ. Pravilnik o Tehničkim Normativima za Odred̄ivanje Veličina Opterećenja Mostova; Službeni list SFRJ: Beograd,
Serbia, 1991; p. br. 1/91.
35. Šekularac, N.; Čikić-Tovarović, J.; Ivanović-Šekularac, J. Investigating structural stability of historic buildings: A case study of a
rampart wall of Hilandar Monastery. Struct. Eng. Int. 2017, 27, 353–361. [CrossRef]
View publication stats

Sustainability 13 13363 v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 13 13363 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Inspection and Assessment of Masonry Arch Bridges: Ivanjica Case Study

Article in Sustainability · December 2021

Neda Sokolovic Milica Petrović

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ana Kontic Suzana Koprivica

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1 Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia; milica.petrovic@arh.bg.ac.rs (M.P.);

Sustainability 2021, 13, 13363. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313363 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

3. Case Study Methodology

3.1. Ivanjica Stone Arch Bridge Background

Sustainability 2021, 13, 13363 5 of 23

Figure 3. Three-dimensional model of masonry stone arch bridge in Ivanjica.

Sustainability 2021, 13, 13363 10 of 23

3.5. Physical–Mechanical Testing of Stone Structure

Bulk Density without Pores

Coefficient of Bulk Density

m 3.6. Biological Analysis of Damage on the Stone Bridge Overburden Pressure in

Dry Condition (MPa)

Table 1. Results of testing of stone samples.

Laboratory Mark of the Samples Mineralogical–Petrological

Bulk Density with Pores and

Bulk Density without Pores

Coefficient of Bulk Density

Dry Condition (MPa)

Arenaceous Arenaceous Arenaceous

By biological testing, a high degree of biodegradation of the surface of the embedded

3.7. Structural Analysis

Table 2. Dead loads.

Sustainability 2021, 13,Dead

Kd = 1.4 − 0.008 × 28.8 = 1.17 ≈ 1.2 ≥ 1.0 Calculation

1 Dead load + Uniform Distributed Load 3 kN/m2 6.99 −3.937.22 −3.928.39−3.7419.36−2.0619.60−2.1120.00

∆ƒmax= ƒ(V600/position3)-ƒ (dead load) 3.91 3.93 3.88

Figure 16. 16.

inner structure. As the sandstone used is classified as medium-hard, appearance of inner

View publication stats

You might also like